It appears that Yves was the first person to rpovide any data and it was as follows

On screen :                      FRANCOIS BERLEAND    LE PERE DE LA MARIEE
French capitalization rules    François Berléand          Le Père de la mariée
Invelos proposed Rules        Francois Berleand          Le Père de la mariée

The first two entries make sense, the thirtd MAYBE, though the explanation would seem to fly in the face of Yves' data. But first the Role in line 3 should be Le Pere De La Mariee based on the data.

Now the possible explanation and understand that I think this does not apply since it doesn't fit the data. But the Rules permit the use of a third party data source IF there are no Roles assigned to the actors (again this appears to NOT be the case) but IF and some user copied the data from somewhere then perhaps they would have copied

Le Père de la mariée, or perhaps the data pre-dates the Rules and hasn't been updated. I can see where line 3 presents an inconsistency because based upon the data it is presented improperly. I am not going to try and judge what happened or why, unlike some around here, but there is a problem with line 3 and it could have happened several ways. The way I suggested is consistent with the Rules and the Actors name handling, is it correct to french spelling Rules....NO, but it is correct to Profiler standard of On Screen Credt..

I truly hope that is what Yves had in mind. Call me jaded.But as to his wish to match the French spelling Rules vis a vis the actor, then my suggestion is best answer, but I don't have an answer if that introduces an inconsistency in the ROLE, but I will think about it.

I hate plumbing.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Rick:

It is logical, you weren't aware of it, I WAS and i dsin=gbnd it remember.

Sorry, my skip-o-lator blew up on this line. Other than you saying it is logical I don't know what you are telling me here. 

My skip-o-lator has the new firmware upgrade and I was able to decode this message:

   

I have my automatic updates turned off! 

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Actually, I don't believe that is true.  We are talking about standard capitalization, which means which word have the first letter capitalized, what Surfeur is talking about is converting an uppercase character into a lowercase character.  I believe Ken's clarification covers all conversions of all uppercase to mixed case...C=c and Ç=ç.

I believe Rho has already covered this but just in case, if Ken's clarification covers all conversions then it contradicts the rules.
If the phrase "LE PERE DE LA MARIEE" is in the overview of a French DVD then the rules dictate we use French capitalisation rules. That would make it "Le Père de la mariée".
However Ken's clarification insists we enter "Le Pere de la mariee" which is absolutely NOT French capitalisation rules.
At least in the case of overviews and non-english titles, where the capitalisation rule to be used is specified, the rule and the clarification cannot co-exist.

I also just want to clarify my position, while I sympathise with Surfeur and also wanted the accents kept, at this stage I couldn't support a change in the rules to change them back. I think we have gone too far down one road to turn back now. I would much rather an update that allows accented and non-accented variations of a name to link automatically.

***This is in response to Skip's remarks to me. It is off topic and you might want to ignore what I have to say,***

I have carefully re-read all of the postings on the locked thread you address in the message to me.

The original poster only wanted to express their pleasure that the forums had become a more pleasant place. I do not have a problem with that.

The next few posts did infer that there was a reason for that but no single person was called out. There was also no name calling or other nasty remarks.

Several posters even joked that the reasons the forums improved was because they had been away.

There was concern expressed that the inferences of some posters might be perceived the wrong way and that in order to truly make the forums better we all needed to be better.

I also wanted to make clear my thoughts on the matter:

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

My hope is that all the community members that left, for whatever reason, will find the forums open and welcoming. I also hope that when they do return, we all strive to keep the forums that way.

I would like to know how this  results in you feeling this way:

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

Kathy. Sorry, hon and every time you do it you p--- me off just a little bit more. You walk in start participating in a thread that went for 6 pages and was nothing more than focused attack thread aimed at one user, fortunately Ken finally locked it, BUT he did not remove it, it is still there for all to see and yse it still makes me blind mad that is there and that it was allowed to go for 6 pages before ANY sort of action was taken, nor as far as i can tell was any sort of action taken against any of the individual participants in the thread...including you, Kathy. You lower your credibility by participating in such asinine behavior, but then ken does to by allowing it to happen in the first place.

I did not see any posts that were directly attacking you. There were posts that might have been more kind but the comments were made to others and had nothing to do with you.

Vittra then posted a link to three threads which illustrated the frustration many of us feel over some forum postings. Once again you took this to be a direct insult to you:

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

Lovely, vittra, now why am I not surprised that you would use this thread to attack a user. More importantly why is it that you think that is OK. because ken has chosen to IGNORE the behavior of people like yourself and Alien, north, Tim to name just a few who use these thread to attack people.

How do I know that Vittra was NOT pointing the finger at any one in particular? Because she said so:

Quoting Vittra:

Quote:

Just so we're clear and that everyone understands the point of my post it was *not* Skip directed in the least bit. I merely said that there were 3 epic failures of threads within a week's time. I did *not* say "only been a week since (such and such) happened". So for all you that are insinuating and reading between the lines (You included Skip, which is why your post upset me) can you please reread what I wrote with this in mind....

Just because Skip and I have had our moments and I have openly been frustrated with him, does not mean that every single one of my posts has some kind of hidden meaning. This is exactly why this forum is having so many troubles and things aren't improving. Forum members pin hole people into certain "cliques" ("Spotters", "Skip defenders", etc.) on all sides of different arguments and base their opinions on each post with that kind of prejudice.

Take a look at how fast people jump on each other based on not what is said, but who the user is. This includes Skip as well. Many of his posts that take a lot of heat aren't offensive but they are taken as such due to his history. But in the other direction, Skip (and many others) can be overly critical of a simple post and take it as some sort of agenda driven remark.

I wish people would consider this sometimes before posting....

And I'm still not sure why my next comment in response to Vittra angers you:

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

Thank  you for your thoughts. I promise to be more careful from now on.

My next comment:

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

I don't want to be excluded!  But seriously, everyone can always improve themselves.

There are some members that felt I was not fair in some of my comments. There may be some truth to this and I will be more careful in the future.

I am now up to page 5 and have not made a singe rude or nasty remark to you or anyone else. Although a lack of sensitivity might have been shown, up to this point I did not, and do not, feel that I needed to address any of the comments that were made.

My feelings changed after I read several of the comments that were made on this and several other threads. Once again, many of the problems revolve around the things that you say.

History plays a factor in the way people respond to one another. But, in my opinion, many times you read things into postings that I do not see. What I do see is that more often than not when insults and nasty comments are made, they originate from you.

You then are shocked and upset when others respond in kind. There would not be such a response if the original comments were not made.

You mention that I have been "participating in such asinine behavior". Please show me exactly where my behavior has been asinine.

Is it because I will no longer be silent when I read comments that are disturbing? You have mentioned many times that you feel I have singled you out - on this you are quite correct. Why? Look through my quotes of things you said since you came back - the answers are there.

You helped me personally in so many ways - maybe that is why it bothers me so much how you come across at times.

Are you the only problem? Of course not. But, I honestly believe that the answer lies with you and how you present yourself through your commentary. It will take time but once you change, others will follow.

You were the catalyst of much that is good in the program. My hope is that you return to the kind and helpful person that I know you can be.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

i don't ask, Kathy, I DEMAND fairness from you and anyone, If you want respect from me, well it's a two way street..

To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“Men are respectable only as they respect”

Unfortunately, sir, you do not subscribe to this dogma.


Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

I am not sure at which point ken decided that YOU were the enforcer of the Forums...but your admitted lack a fairness earns you an F in this corner and your credibility is exceedingly low at the moment.

From what I've seen and come to know about Kathy's judgment and integrity, the corner of which you speak and proclaim to inhabit has as much validity as the corner of an outhouse.

Kathy, you'll get nowhere with this person, I suggest you rest upon the notion that you are respected here and he is not, and leave it at that. He is not worth the effort or the aggravation. The forum community stands with you on this.

.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Ok Kathy now's your chance. this is a very typical post from this person a post which attacking insulting and demeaning. Show me.

Here, unfortunately, is where you are going to run into a problem.  While you see his post as attacking, insulting and demeaning, not everybody is going to see it that way.  If the post bothers you, say so, but you can't expect other people to do the same.  It is, quite simply, an unrealistic expectation.

Martian:

Then she should keep her mouth shut, all I ask is fairness. Even she admirtted I was not the only "problem" she sees, but i am the only one she calls out.

DoubleDown:

Point taken. I will try harder, but keep in mind if i feel that I have been attacked then don't be surprised when i fight back. I will freely admit some of the bad taste that is still in my mouth from some users and no, I won't name them, I suspect they know who they are. Then there are people like my friend surfeur, who has just managed to make me very skeptical of what his objectives are, but i will continue to try to find and beg Ken for a solution for what he wants as i have already described.

I don't want to go into a lot of detail, most users I believe come with no ill intent or agenda as regards the program. But there are others who live to find something that they can make an issue of, and i don't consider their motives to well-intentioned. I firmly believe that the Online should serve the needs of ALL users not simply a majority and i have gone into quite a lot of detail on this elsewhere.

As I said DoubleDown, your point is taken and i thank you for it.